Moving the debate about educational standards, inter alia, over to this side of the Site, at the suggestion of Peter.
I am one of those who thinks that education shouldn't be free - that nothing good can be gained by paying nothing (and I'm not talking about general government revenue here - i.e. the public purse). I wrote a letter in a major national newspaper to this effect about 5 years ago and was the object of scorn and derision from a few of my colleagues in teaching. But I think there is something in this, if you will indulge me a little. Most of the schools I taught in were in a shabby condition, the parents did not have to pay fees, the curtains were torn, toilets trashed and general appearance of the place was of a medieval fortress. I believed that if parents were financial stakeholders in the schools things would be very different: that ownership changes peoples' attitudes to property. Many of the students didn't value school because of the poor condition of the buildings and hardware, just as a starting point. Even school computers were trashed and little cared for. Conversely, in private schools there is greater care taken with these things because many of the parents have raised money themselves to buy them, through fetes and the like. There is, therefore, a proprietary sensibility in the school community. This flows on to education itself, the subjects and disciplines since there are better resources available to encourage more effective learning. (Syllabus matters are the prerogative of a State authority and cannot be negotiated by individual schools). In this country, with its very high standard of living, it seems ludicrous to me to see parents pulling up in expensive all-wheeled drive vehicles (and there are tens and tens of thousands of them) who are not paying a single cent for their childrens' education. That's the issue I have, but I know it is controversial. This does not mean that those who cannot afford to pay should be disadvantaged - education should be means tested to help these people.
Secondly, I'm not at all sure I agree with Peter about useless university degrees. There is a school (sorry, no pun intended) of thought which says that vocational degrees get people jobs when generalist humanities degrees do not. I think the jury is still out on this. As to declining standards - well, yes, the problem is the teaching profession itself which no longer is able to add up manually, nor can teachers understand grammar. A dear friend who is a Maths teacher explained it this way - kids are being asked to do ever more complex things in Mathematics, so it's not as simple as addition, subtraction and multiplication. I saw that for myself with my Extension English students when I looked at a senior Maths text book and was daunted by what I saw there. I still think kids are very smart, certainly in terms of adaptability, tolerance and resilience.
I am one of those who thinks that education shouldn't be free - that nothing good can be gained by paying nothing (and I'm not talking about general government revenue here - i.e. the public purse). I wrote a letter in a major national newspaper to this effect about 5 years ago and was the object of scorn and derision from a few of my colleagues in teaching. But I think there is something in this, if you will indulge me a little. Most of the schools I taught in were in a shabby condition, the parents did not have to pay fees, the curtains were torn, toilets trashed and general appearance of the place was of a medieval fortress. I believed that if parents were financial stakeholders in the schools things would be very different: that ownership changes peoples' attitudes to property. Many of the students didn't value school because of the poor condition of the buildings and hardware, just as a starting point. Even school computers were trashed and little cared for. Conversely, in private schools there is greater care taken with these things because many of the parents have raised money themselves to buy them, through fetes and the like. There is, therefore, a proprietary sensibility in the school community. This flows on to education itself, the subjects and disciplines since there are better resources available to encourage more effective learning. (Syllabus matters are the prerogative of a State authority and cannot be negotiated by individual schools). In this country, with its very high standard of living, it seems ludicrous to me to see parents pulling up in expensive all-wheeled drive vehicles (and there are tens and tens of thousands of them) who are not paying a single cent for their childrens' education. That's the issue I have, but I know it is controversial. This does not mean that those who cannot afford to pay should be disadvantaged - education should be means tested to help these people.
Secondly, I'm not at all sure I agree with Peter about useless university degrees. There is a school (sorry, no pun intended) of thought which says that vocational degrees get people jobs when generalist humanities degrees do not. I think the jury is still out on this. As to declining standards - well, yes, the problem is the teaching profession itself which no longer is able to add up manually, nor can teachers understand grammar. A dear friend who is a Maths teacher explained it this way - kids are being asked to do ever more complex things in Mathematics, so it's not as simple as addition, subtraction and multiplication. I saw that for myself with my Extension English students when I looked at a senior Maths text book and was daunted by what I saw there. I still think kids are very smart, certainly in terms of adaptability, tolerance and resilience.
Comment